Beth G. Beattie

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding his 14-month detention in a maximum security mental health facility.

The application was filed approximately two years and nine months after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal found that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant had been found capable of managing his property and had actively participated in other legal proceedings during the delay period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a request to re-activate his deferred human rights application more than 14 months past the 60-day time limit following the conclusion of his related Court of Appeal proceeding.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address the delay.

Finding that the applicant failed to provide a good reason for the significant delay and that the respondents could suffer prejudice, the Tribunal declined to extend the time limit and dismissed the request to re-activate, thereby dismissing the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application in 2013 regarding an incident that occurred in 1991, where a derogatory comment was allegedly written on the wall of his room at a psychiatric facility.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the 22-year delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant had the necessary information to file in 1991.

Furthermore, the respondent would suffer substantial prejudice due to the passage of time, the death of a witness, and the closure of the facility.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, place of origin, ethnic origin, and marital status regarding the care her mother received at a long-term care facility and her own treatment by the facility and the Ministry.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of her mother without consent.

Regarding her own treatment, the applicant admitted she was relying on assumptions and beliefs rather than factual evidence linking the treatment to the protected grounds.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of health care services on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and disability.

She alleged that she had difficulty finding a family doctor and that immigrants receive preferential access to health care services.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking her difficulties in finding a family doctor to any discriminatory actions by the Ministry of Health or the Ontario Medical Association.

The applicant, who has complex health problems, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the provision and eventual termination of home care services by the SECCAC and the respondent Ministries.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims against the Ministries, finding no Code requirement for government benefit programs to be perfectly tailored to individual needs.

The Tribunal also dismissed most claims against the SECCAC regarding the quality of care and failure to accommodate, as disagreements over medical care do not constitute discrimination.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that the termination of services was discriminatory to proceed, as it required evidence to determine if the complexity of the applicant's disability was a factor in the service providers' refusal to work.

The applicant filed human rights applications against numerous dentists, physicians, and administrative staff, alleging discrimination based on disability and creed, as well as reprisal.

He claimed he received substandard medical and dental care because he was an ODSP recipient and because of his spiritual beliefs.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the alleged mistreatment to the protected grounds under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of race during his involuntary detention at a mental health facility.

The parties brought a joint motion for a consent order to resolve the complaint.

The Tribunal granted the motion and issued a consent order requiring the facility to educate patients on harassment and discrimination, requiring a doctor to meet with the applicant to discuss prevention strategies, and ordering the Ministry to pay the applicant $20,000.

The parties consented to the removal of all individual respondents from the human rights complaint.

The Tribunal ordered their removal and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision granting ARCH Disability Law Centre leave to intervene in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for submissions regarding the applicant's request to appoint Sheila Barber as litigation guardian, noting the respondent's intention to argue a conflict of interest.

During a case management conference call in a human rights application, the respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the applicant's litigation guardian, who holds powers of attorney for personal care and property, should be removed due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to file the relevant Power of Attorney and scheduling a teleconference hearing to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to remove a litigation guardian under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination in the provision of services.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to address preliminary issues, including requests for early dismissal.

The applicant's paralegal representative failed to comply with multiple Tribunal directions to file materials, unsuccessfully sought three adjournments, and ultimately failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned due to the failure to attend and comply with directions.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the representative's pattern of conduct, which was directed at avoiding or delaying the hearing, constituted an abuse of process under section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, providing an additional basis for dismissal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal, along with a request to expedite proceedings.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances requiring rapid resolution compared to the regular process.

The Ontario Review Board brought a motion for leave to intervene in an appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion on several conditions, including that the Board take no position on the merits of the appeal or the specific allegations of bias, but rather explain its general practices regarding the assignment of panel members.

The defendants in a proposed class action appealed a motions judge's decision refusing to compel the proposed plaintiffs to answer questions about an alternative compensation scheme.

The Divisional Court held that 'procedure' in s. 5(1)(d) of the Class Proceedings Act includes alternative dispute resolution methods outside the court system.

However, the court dismissed the appeal, finding that whether an alternative method is preferable is an objective determination for the motions judge, and little is gained by asking the proposed plaintiffs for their opinion on the matter.